New Zealand Votes Part 4: Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

Moving along on the coverage of the 2008 New Zealand Election, up today is the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand
Seats at Dissolution: 6

On Climate Change

• Support the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol
• Except for fuel sold to electricity companies, require companies who bring fossil fuel into the NZ to purchase and transfer to government enough Kyoto-compliant emissions units to cover the carbon that is released when that fuel is burned.
• Exempt from any requirement to purchase units sectors whose emissions are at or below 1990 levels (beef and sheep industries).

On “Civilian Based Defence”

Investigate the development of civilian based defence where some citizens are trained to resist aggression or usurpation by withholding cooperation and by active non-cooperation rather than military force

On Drug Policy

• Prioritise the prosecution of crimes such as violent offences ahead of personal cannabis possession.
• Enable doctors to prescribe cannabis products for severely ill patients.
• Introduce a legal age limit of 18 years for personal cannabis use.
• Review all drug-related legislation to ensure consistency and a harm reduction approach.

On the Economy

We will reform the tax system so everyone pays less income tax, clean businesses are rewarded and wasters and polluters pay more. All sources of income will be taxed in the same way, so that speculation is not rewarded compared with genuine wealth creation.

On Energy

• Introducing a carbon charge on fossil fuels, and using the revenue to reduce income tax on the bottom band, for everyone.
• Support a programme to install solar water heating panels on government and private buildings.
• Investigate the potential of woody biomass, biofuels, and energy from waves, tides and currents.

• 
  

On Forign Policy

• Place a carbon tax on energy intensive imports from OECD countries which have not accepted binding targets
• Support reducing the indebtedness of poor countries including the cancellation of ‘odious debt’ that should never have been granted.
• Increase New Zealand’s ODA budget to 0.7% of GNI by 2015

On Health

• Support continued use of pricing mechanisms to discourage the use of tobacco and alcohol.
• Ensure the underlying factors of ill health, such as unemployment, poor housing, and poor nutrition are addressed.
• Increase funding to promote health and prevent illness and injury to 10% of the health budget.

On Education

• Introduce a debt write-off scheme so that, at the end of studies, each year the person stays in Aotearoa and contributes through paid or unpaid full time work, a year's worth of debt will be wiped.
• Until the scheme is redundant, the Green Party will:

1. Adjust repayment thresholds to start at a higher income level but introduce higher income bands that attract a higher rate of repayment.
2. Suspend all interest for people on low incomes and for primary caregivers.
3. Make study costs tax-deductible for students who do not qualify for an allowance.
4. Apply zero real rate of interest to student loans (i.e. rate of Consumer Price Index only).

• Establish a universal student allowance, at the level of the unemployment benefit, for all full-time students (including students aged 16 and 17 in tertiary education).

The Greens have a lot of policies I like here, and some that just confuse me. On the plus side, they have a sensible drug policy which focuses on harm reduction, a commitment to 0.7% of GDP to ODA, increasing renewable energy, student debt relief, and a carbon pricing scheme. On the other hand, I don't quite grasp their desire to"discourage the use of... alcohol", which strikes me as running in opposition to their drug policy. Tobacco and Alcohol are two different animals: If I have a drink, the person sitting beside me doesn't get drunk.

While the Greens do have an extensive policy on defence, their "Civilian Based Defence" policy struck me as unique, especially their policy to ensure"citizens are trained to resist aggression or usurpation by withholding cooperation".

Up next in the series will be the Maori Party.

McCain's invocation of fear and racism has created a monster, and his current situation is his own damn fault

Over a year ago, when the campaign for the White House was just getting started, comparisons were made to the 7th season of the West Wing. A charismatic, non-Caucasian, Democratic newcomer promising hope was pitted against a senior member of the Republican Party with a reputation of breaking with his own party. The result was a nail biter of a election, decided only when the final state came in.

While the current election in the United States may have superficially resembled the one on the West Wing, barring a major incident in these last few days, Obama seems set to become the next President of the United States. At this time, fivethirtyeight.com has the probability of a McCain victory at 4.3% with the Battleground States being Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Montana, and Georgia. Even McCain’s home state of Arizona is separated by under 10 percentage points. If it comes to pass that Obama does become the next President, McCain supporters will be looking for targets on whom to blame their failure: The “liberal-media elites”, Washington Insiders (like Former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell), an unpopular incumbent president, and a rogue running mate who seems to possess less foreign policy credentials than a Taco Bell Burrito. Try all he might, however, if McCain loses, his blame can be placed on the shoulders of only one individual: John McCain.

McCain could have campaigned against the policies of torture (no doubt he has opposed it in the past), he could have played to the majority of citizens living in the centre of the spectrum by engaging in a policy debate. Unfortunately for him, he chose another path

This incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election... If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting."
Fox News Executive Vice-President John Moody
On McCain volunteer Ashley Todd's claim that an Obama supporter carved a "B" into her face for supporting McCain.

Instead, McCain has tried to be two dramatically different candidates. On one hand, he has tried to link his opponent to terrorists, communism, and as threatened doom upon the country should Democrats ever take office. McCain supporters have yelled "Terrorist", "Traitor" and "Kill Him" at rallies featuring the Republican nominees, and no one has said a thing to quash this divisive language.

The most despicable act has been the Republican campaign’s promotion of a story about a woman claiming to have been beaten up by a large African-American individual for supporting McCain. In doing so, McCain attempted to open up the wounds that have been healing for 40 years since the civil rights movement for his own political gain. In this election, McCain has been adopting the same Rovian tactics he once condemned in South Carolina in 2000.


On the other hand, McCain has tried to be the “straight-talk” statesman of 2000 telling a crowd that Obama was a decent person who people didn’t have to fear if elected (note to McCain though – “decent” isn’t the antonym of “Arab”). McCain has tried to have his cake and eat it to; to pander to the militant racists in his party, while at the same time trying to lure over middle-of-the-road independents.

The problem with this tactic though is that you confuse people by telling them that someone is bad - associating with terrorists, but you don't have to be afraid of them in office. When people are confused in desperate times, their confusion turns to fear, a fear that McCain has transformed into anger against a perceived scapegoat, in this case, his opponent. In doing so, McCain has created a monster, a monster that came very near to resembling a lynch mob at a recent rally, when two Obama supporters showed up. It is this monster that McCain can no longer understand or control, as evident in the fact McCain himself got booed when he tried to stand up for Obama. It is this monster that has seemingly turned the majority of independents off the current Republican nominee.


So to McCain supporters on both sides of the 49th, if you don’t like the results on November 5th – don’t blame the “media”, or money, or reality’s well-known liberal bias, or Palin going rogue. In the end, you’ll have no one to blame but yourselves.

New Zealand Votes Part 3: Updated polls, and a look at NZ Labour

Angus Reid has some updated polling out of New Zealand, showing National with an 11 point lead over Labour (43% to 32%). Greens are polling in a strong third at 11.5%, NZ First is next at 4.5%, , ACT at 3.5%, Maori Party at 2.5%, and finally United Future and the Progressive Party each with 0.5%.

With that, next up in our look at New Zealand's Party Policies is the party of current Prime Minister Helen Clark who has been in power since December of 1999.

New Zealand Labour Party

On energy efficiency

We are also committed to providing $500 cash grants through approved suppliers for the installation of solar water heating in homes.

On renewable energy

Labour has a goal of a 90% renewable energy supply by 2025 – that’s almost all power in New Zealand produced from wind, geothermal, tidal, and hydro power.

Men’s Health

Labour will increase access to men’s health and wellness checks through extended hours in primary care, outreach services and workplace and occupational health initiatives for men.

Women’s Health and Maternity

Labour will work to address work force issues in maternity care and continue to ensure local access to reliable, safe midwifery and obstetric services across the country.

On Crime

By creating a fair and inclusive society, we can reduce crime and the causes of crime. Labour will continue to create jobs and invest in improving education for all people. 130,000 children have been lifted out of poverty over the last nine years and we will continue to support our vulnerable families.

On Foreign Aid:

We established NZAID as a semi-autonomous body, and have increased Official Development Assistance expenditure to 0.30% of Gross National Income. We will increase it further to 0.35% of Gross National Income by 2010.

Labour's policy page highlights many of their perceived accomplishments over the last few years, as well as some predictable initiatives. As expected, Labour's goals for sustainable energy are substantially more ambitious than those of National (and aren't entirely unrealistic given New Zealand's access to geothermal energy). They also commit to increasing New Zealand's ODA by a furthur .05% to 0.35% (still only half of the 0.7% I'd like industrialized states to commit). Furthurmore, they have a section under "justice" that aside from dealing with the standard issues of parole and policies on the streets, deals with root causes of crime, which is encouraging.

The one thing that surprised me was a section devoted to "Men's Health" under the health section. While I've seen a number of parties from different backgrounds in different countries address the unique demands of Women's heath issues, this would have to be the first time I've seen a party specifically address Men's Health Issues.

Up next in the NZ Votes 2008 series: The Green Party of Aotearoa

New Zealand Votes Part 2: A look at the National Party

In part 2 of my efforts to spread the good word of New Zealand democracy to the Canadian Blogosphere, I’m introducing the second of the parties vying for control of “The Beehive”. Up today is the National Party, a centre-right party expected to form government after this election.

National Party: “Choose a Brighter Future”
Seats at dissolution: 48

On the Environment

"Set and legislate for an achievable emissions reduction target for New Zealand – a 50% reduction in New Zealand’s carbon-equivalent net emissions, as compared to 1990 levels, by 2050…. Honour New Zealand’s Kyoto Protocol obligations."

Focus on incentives for biofuels and new energy technologies rather than compulsion.

Make it easier to invest in renewable energy by reforming the Resource Management Act.

On Health

Support the smart use of the private sector to increase the number of people getting timely access to vitally needed surgery, and reduce hospital waiting lists.

On Defence

Emphasise a requirement for agile forces, deployable at long range with relatively short notice.

On Justice

Expand literacy programmes so more leave prison able to read, write, and do maths better than when they entered.

"The National Party believes prisoners should be treated humanely, but that prison facilities should be in keeping with public expectations, reflecting the fact that prisoners are paying a debt to society."

Some things to note here are some expected stances on justice (get tough on crime, criminals need to pay for what they’ve done), health (increase public choice through private service), and the environment (shying away from regulatory mechanisms in favour of market mechanisms such as new technologies). While there is a commitment for a 50% reduction of carbon emissions by 2050, I have doubts that such a target can be met simply by betting on hypothetical, as yet uninvented, technologies. As for their comments on defence, they suggest a willingness to deploy “agile forces… at long range” (a strategy which could be useful for responding to situations like the Rwandan Genocide), but don’t specify what “long range” would mean, and under what circumstances would they be deployed.

However, unlike our Conservative Party (who at one point referred to Kyoto as a socialist wealth distribution plot) the National Party includes commitments to meeting New Zealand’s Kyoto targets.

Next up... the ruling Labour Party.

University ceremonies should be secular, but I'm not hung up over one small line

Things are heating up at my Alma Matter. The University of Alberta Atheist and Agnostic club is protesting a line used in the convocation ceremony where the Chancellor challenges the new graduates to use their newfound distinctions for "the glory of God and the honour of your country.”

I went through the University of Alberta’s convocation ceremony, and I recall the line – it made me roll my eyes at the time, however it didn’t offend me. I’ve used this platform to rage against the intrusion of religious institutions into the public sphere – mostly on health issues such as the HPV vaccine, or abortion, but a small line at the end of a 2-3 hour ceremony I was under no obligation to attend didn’t really faze me. While I find the line quaint, I didn’t – and still don’t – care enough about it to demand its alteration. The Chancellor could have charged me to use my degree for the glory of Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, or Xenu and I still wouldn’t have cared, and it wouldn’t have affected what I will choose to do with my degree.

As expected though, this story has the “Jesus Freaks” up in arms, including (oddly) the Graduate Students’ Association President Daniel Soliman who claims, "It's a reflection of the values the U of A is founded upon… It would be a disgrace to our country to exclude God from our convocation."

Ok, lets clear a few things up. While the UofA’s motto “Quaecumque Vera” (Whatsoever Things Are True) comes from The Bible, and our national anthem includes the line “God keep our land”, neither institutions were founded as being uniquely Christian in nature. Alberta’s first Premier Alexander Rutherford, and the first President of the University, Henry Marshal Tory envisioned the University of Alberta as a “secular institution”; and while the preamble for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms claims “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law” – the word “god” appears nowhere in the Constitution Act of 1867. It took me about 5 minutes of googling to find the above information, and the defenders of the status quo (including the President of the GSA at the University of Alberta) should do their research a bit better.

Anyway, tradition is a funny thing. While it’s important to remember our past, and where our society and institutions have come from, we mustn’t be handcuffed by it. Our society has evolved over time, and we can’t be bound by the traditions and realities of 100, 141, or 2008 years ago. The fact that we’ve always done something one way isn’t an argument for why a practice should continue. Secularism isn't "Anti-God", it simply means "No Comment".

Personally though, I don’t care enough one way or another regarding the removal of the line. When it comes to the undo influence religious institutions have in public life, this is a minor issue.

New Zealand Votes 2008: A Special Comment on the NZ First Party's Platform

In my rush to make it to my Economics class, I missed an opportunity to comment on the NZ First Party’s platform. Some of the elements of their platform I found amusing, such as the commitment to “ban criminal gangs” (because criminals are known for their law abiding nature?) Others were infuriating, such as their comments on the environment. Others still were scary – such as their comments on the immigration. I know that this is a Canadian blog (meaning most of you don’t really care about the partisan dynamics in Wellington), that I was a year old when my family left New Zealand, and what goes on in New Zealand (unlike the US elections) will have little impact on my life. However, it would be naïve to believe emotions like this don’t exist in Canada – even among our political parties, and as such these views deserves comment.

I’ve always felt, even in my elementary school days, that Canada’s diversity was a plus, that our collective differences strengthen the fabric of Canadian (or New Zealand) society. The fact that all Canadians, save the aboriginals (even here, some Beringia-loving paleogeographer will raise exception) have come here from somewhere else bringing new foods, languages, skills, and ways of thinking has helped us overcome crises that would otherwise have overwhelmed us. It shouldn’t (in fact, it doesn’t) matter where our parents, or our grandparents were born. Ultimately, we are all here now, committed to the ideal of improving our society in whatever way we can.

Yet xenophobes like this, for whatever reason, still exist. There remain those who’d rather focus on that which divides us– where our parents were born or what our face looks like, than focus on that which unites us. Ask anyone with a passing familiarity in population ecology, a monoculture is more vulnerable to disease and disturbance. Diversity makes us strong.

While American policy often gets knocked around this side of the 49th, in this case, I think they got it spot on:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus, 1883

New Zealand Votes Part 1: National on pace to upset Labour coalition

In what is proving to be a busy year for elections, the other country whose citizenship I can claim is holding an election as well. New Zealand employs the Mixed Member Proportional system of government (of which I'm a big fan), and a change appears to be brewing in Aotearoa. At the time of the writ drop, the Labour Party lead a minority coalition with 50 of the 121 seats.National had 48, NZ First had 7, Greens had 6, Maori Party had 4, and 7 seats held by other parties. However Angus Reid currently has National polling at 50%, with Labour at 36%, the Greens at 5%, Maori Party at 2%, and the NZ First Party at 2%.

So lets take a look at some of the parties competing for the big prize.

NZ First: “Protect and Save YOUR New Zealand”:
(whose policy document is a 97 page word file)

On Immigration:

"Changes in immigration policy have meant that almost two thirds of the overall growth in the “new immigrant” population since 1986 has come from Asia. The 2006 Census showed the number of people of Asian decent increased by 48.9% since 2001. This dramatic increase has seen those of Asian ethnicity overtake Pacific peoples as the third largest ethnic group, and demographers believe those of Asian ethnicity will overtake Maori as our second largest ethnicity within 20 years. "

On Health
• commit to incrementally raising spending on health to reach our target goal of 10% of GDP;

On Crime
• introduce legislation to ban all criminal gangs;

On the Environment

“...we are not captured by the extremist fringe of the environmental movement. We maintain that the role of the state must be to strike a balance between economic progress and appropriate environmental goals. This can only be achieved through a partnership between government, industry, and community groups”

My Top Three Priorities for Canada: The Four Strong Winds Blogosphere Challenge.

Near the end of the Federal Election, I continued a tradition from the Albertan Provincial election where I attempt to start a conversation amongst a small number of blogs. In my opinion, the resulting dialogue of conflicting ideas is better than the usual reactionary response to issues of the day that typically occurs. Unfortunately, my academic schedule caught up with me and I didn’t have the time to finish the challenge, let alone post my own thoughts on the matter. With a bit more free time on my hands, I’ll rectify that situation.

Four Strong Winds’ Top Three Priorities for Canada

1)Electoral Reform: FPTP sucks, and ranks only ahead of the US Electoral College as the dumbest way to elect a government. The first priority would be to change our system to some form of PR, in my ideal scenario: Mixed Member Proportional combined with an instant runoff ballot. Party support would be measured by a standard ballot (with parties being required to meet a minimum 5% support before they received seats), while the local representative would be elected by an instant runoff ballot, with candidates requiring 50% to become elected (along with a none of the above option). Some, such as Josh, argue that MMP gives to much support to parties, and not enough to independent candidates. My argument is that it’s not the voting system that favours parties; it’s the money that they can throw around. Independents can still be elected as regional reps under MMP.

2)The Environment: As I’ve mentioned numerous times on this blog, the environment is an issue that touches many others: Public Health, The Economy, War and Peace (read “Collapse” by Jared Diamond), etc. At home, Canada needs to institute a Carbon Pricing scheme, invest in alternative forms of power (wind, tidal, solar), and increasing the scope and accessibility of Public Transit in our municipalities. Abroad, we need to work at sharing technologies with developing countries so they don’t proceed down the same carbon-intensive industrializing process that we did.

3) Health at Home: I was going to talk about the need to increase our foreign presence abroad here, but it struck me that we should get our own house in order first – and the whole reason I made this challenge about the “Top Three” was so people were forced to make tough choices. Anyway, my two pronged view of health is as such: First, a sensible drug policy that treats addicts as patients (not criminals) and expands needle exchanges and safe injection sites, with the stated goal of decreasing blood-borne diseases. The second focus of my approach would be increasing access to services for traditionally under-privileged persons in Canada, especially Canada’s Aboriginal Community.

So there they are – my top three priorities. If you’ve got your own that you’d like to bring forward, by all means – post, send me an email, and lets get some dialogue going.

More selfish reasons to address climate change: Deadly diseases may spread

According to a recent Scientific American article, the world could see an increase in prevalence of 12 of its deadly diseases should the world's climate change as predicted. Among the predicted diseases would be: Avian flu, Cholera, Ebola, Tuberculosis, and history's favorite pandemic - the Plague. The increased is attributed to increased heat and rainfall in central Africa and other epidemiological hotspots. If the health arguments aren't enough, the spread of red tides could cause damage to Canada's fisheries.

Opie, Andy, Richie Cunningham and the Fonz speak out on change and the upcomming American election

From funnyordie.com

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

Bravo Apple: Apple comes out swinging against California's Proposition 8

I finally got a chance to go through my RSS feeds today, and I came across this little news piece from Apple:

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

Google came out against Proposition 8 back in September, with Co-founder Sergey Brin saying "We should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love". Levi Strauss has also come out against Prop 8.

Good for them! It's nice to see groups like this take a stand against stupidity, intolerance, and hate.

The Fundamentals of the Economy... Still going strong!

Federal government runs $1.7B August deficit - CBC

"I certainly am of the view as a fiscal conservative that paying down debt and reducing taxes are certainly ways of creating economic stimulus," he (Finance Minister Jim Flaherty) said."

Well, Jim, if you don't mind my saying, you're not doing a very good job of stimulating the economy. The Federal Tories would be well served, when dealing with our economy and looking at the mess our American friends are in, to remember a certain adage:

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results"

New ad attacks Palin's record on rape/abortion

For those wondering what's new south of the border with the whole election thing, big H/T to nicweb at DailyKos for posting this new ad . It's quite intense.

A truant “Blog Action Day” post: The selfish argument for eliminating global poverty

Unfortunately, my academic schedule has made me forgo blogging for the past week, and it seems I’ve missed quite a bit: Election results, the US race is heating up, and most importantly, October 15th was Blog Action day, with this year’s topic being poverty. Now while I admit I didn’t get a chance to pay attention to most of the news cycles during the campaign, if it was like any of the previous elections that this country has held, I can bet that issues of poverty (both international and among our own population) remained overlooked.

This is perhaps understandable. Elections are about telling your “Average Canadian” how your policies will impact them directly. Candidates talk about police on the streets, teachers in the classrooms, and other such goodies for the swing ridings. By comparison, shipping Canadian dollars overseas doesn’t seem to have an intuitive impact on the day-to-day lives of most Canadians. Even when issues of foreign aid are mentioned, the arguments in their favour generally revolve around returning to a Pearsonian age where Canada punched above its weight in foreign policy circles. Ultimately, these arguments are values based, rather than on any type of reason, and as I’ve said before – you can never win an argument of “values”; the best you can do is fight to a stalemate.

However, if we were to be completely selfish about this, there is a payback to Canadians in combating global poverty, beyond the political capital it would buy. If we look at our history, some of the worst global plagues – be it the Black Death of the middle ages or the Spanish Influenza of the early 20th Century, originated and were hastened by poor sanitary conditions and high population densities. If you thought the Spanish Influenza, which touched almost every corner of the globe, and killed between 20 – 100million people worldwide between 1918 and 1920 spread quickly, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Try to imagine containing pandemics in an age of global travel, where you can step on a plane in New Delhi and 10 or so hours later, land in London.

If for no other reason than our own self-interest, Canadians, and our government, should be concerned about the eradication of global poverty. By investing in improving sanitation and living conditions in some of the most disadvantaged areas of the world, can work limiting the probability that such epidemics remain a part of our past. While we can never hope to eradicate pandemics, we can work at reducing their likelihood, and quashing them in their early stages. No matter how advanced our medical technologies are, nature and evolution continue to find ways of reminding us of our own mortality.

Tory attack ad is emotional terrorism

Avi over at Straight Outta Edmonton drew my attention to the latest of what I assume is a TV spot the Tories intend to run. I'm not going to feature it here, or even link to the posting of it (Sorry, Avi) because it represents exactly what I've been talking about when criticizing the neoconservative tactic of "The Politics of Nightmares". In its very essence, it is emotional terrorism - designed to create an imaginary boogieman that only the CPC can protect us from, and desrves to be ridiculed, not posted again and again. Think of "Daisy Girl", but with the economy.

Statements like the one the Tory ad tries to get across have no foundation in reality, but they really don't have to. The absence of evidence supporting their claim isn't evidence of absence, and when watching it, the viewer is left with a sense of uncertainty and nervousness - which is exactly what the creators indended. To make you afraid of a fairy tale they made up.

I debated for a while even mentioning the spot on this blog, however in the end, this kind of tactic needs to be exposed for what it is, even if that means preaching to the converted.

Coalition governments and the role of the Governor General

With the race for 24 Sussex tightening up between the Tories and the Liberals, we are presented with a number of different possibilities of what sort of government we might be facing come the day after the election. Appreciating that polls are not wholly reliable, but simply represent a possible future, Canadians may be faced with a historic movement come October 15th.

If one places the latest harris/decima numbers (CON31, LIB27, NDP 20, GP 12, BQ 8) into the Hill and Knowlton election predictor, we get the following seat distribution: Conservatives 107, Liberals 101, New Democrats 51, Greens 1, Bloc 47, Other 1.

While the Conservatives may have the most seats in this Parliament, it’s hard to imagine that they’d be able to govern. With three socially-progressive parties holding steady or gaining at the expense of a much weakened conservative party, it’s hard to imagine that they would allow Harper to govern the same way he has for the last few months. What may result then, if Harper is unable to form government, is that for the first time since King/Byng over 80 years ago, the Governor General may ask a leader of the party with the second greatest number of seats if they can form a coalition government.

Which would mean, for the first time in 80 years, the Governor General has actually played an active (rather than purely ceremonial) role in how our government works.

Four Strong Winds Blogosphere Challenge II: What are your priorities?

During the campaign leading up to the March Albertan election, in an attempt to coordinate a discussion on a single topic within the blogosphere, I asked a number of other Albertan political blogs a question: “What is required to fix the state of democracy in Alberta”.

Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying, Gauntlet.ca, Enlightened Savage, and Pierre Trudeau is My Homeboy all participated, and what followed was a discussion on the merits of different voting systems, PR, mandatory voting, and other methods of citizen engagement.

I’ve decided to revisit the idea, this time with a new question: If you were to suddenly become Prime Minister, and you had the potential to enact any policies you wanted (regardless of how “politically viable” they may or may not be), what would your top 3 priorities be, and how would you approach them?

From the economy, the environment, genocide, and the democratic deficit, there are no shortages of issues that deserve our attention, and there are a multitude of proposed solutions. I know that the readership of this little blog includes a smattering of (L/l)iberals, Dippers, libertarians, and even a few conservatives; so the question is: “what would you do?”

So much for the "risky carbon tax" - open letter from top economists endorses carbon pricing

I realize a number of other bloggers have posted about this already, but I felt compelled to comment as well. Both the Liberals and the Greens seem to be overjoyed about this. 230 Canadian economists from academic institutions across Canada have signed an open letter calling for a carbon pricing scheme similar to that proposed by the Liberal and Green parties. From the Ottawa Citizen:

The economists argue that pricing encourages innovation because users of carbon-intensive goods will demand alternatives. Regulation is the most expensive way to meet the goal because users don't have a choice, the letter says.

In a well-designed carbon-tax strategy, increases would be introduced gradually and announced ahead of time, providing consumers with some certainty and allowing them to make decisions based on what they know is coming.

I've been quite critical of Prime Minister for his use of the politics of nightmares - fighting the Liberal plan with imaginary doomsday scenarios rather than arguments based on reason or reality. I doubt this development will stop Harper from his chosen course of action, economists backing a carbon pricing scheme isn't really new; the Liberal plan has had endorsements for their Green Shift from varying directions since the summer. What I hope this letter, and this article, will do is alert Canadians to the kind of Machiavellian campaign currently being run by the Harper Conservatives.

Tuesday morning omnibus: Halifax Forum, The Economy, and HPV in Alberta

Thoughts on last nights forum:

- It seemed to be a rematch of the English leaders debate. The Green candidate (Darryl Whetter) spoke quite well (albeit a bit too aggressively), and directed most of his attention at the NDP and Conservatives, with a few “our green shift is better than yours” aimed at the Liberals.
- The Liberal candidate (Catherine Meade) tripped over her words a bit, but did what she needed to do – get the policy out in the open (A large proportion of the crowd disagreed with her when she (rightly) pointed out that minimum wages were set by the provinces, after the NDP accused the Liberals of cutting them. The feds only have control over wages under federal jurisdiction).
- Ted Larsen (CPC) was on defense for most of the night in a somewhat hostile room. He spoke well, but relied too heavily on prepared notes. He seemed to come back to the economy a lot, forgetting it was Chrétien and Martin who balanced the books – not Harper.
- NDP candidate Meagan Leslie, preformed well, but was light on details (like their PSE act)
- The Marxist-Leninist candidate was good for a laugh, but little else.

Other Tuesday morning news
- In another example of insane dogma taking president over the health of children, another Catholic School Board in Alberta won’t be giving the HPV vaccine to its students. This time, it’s the Holy Spirit Catholic School Division near Lethbridge. Thankfully, the local health region will be offering the vaccine free of charge at local clinics. Cochrane area parents are already angry due to a previous decision by their board, with one parent asking “If my daughter gets cancer, is [Calgary Bishop Fred Henry] going to be there to save her life?”.

- Harper is playing the “vote for us or bad things will happen to you” card again, and this time he’s (apparently) a psychic! The National Post is carrying a story where the fearless leader has predicted (read: threatened) a dramatic fall in stock prices if the Liberals form government after the election. With economists predicting a recession lasting until 2010 (days after Harper dropped the McCain line of “the fundamentals of the economy are strong"), and with the PM coming under increased attack from opposition leaders, he would do well to remember (as I mentioned with Mr. Larsen) that it was a Liberal government that balanced the books. If the Liberals want to make headway in the polls, they’d be well served to remember the Clinton-era electoral catch phrase of “It’s the economy, stupid”.

Election 2008: Liveblogging the Halifax Debate Part III

Economy:
LPC: What happened on Wall Street is what happens when the government gets out of regulation. When the market regulates itself, it will be regulated by greed.
GPC: Invisible Hand doesn’t exist (Tory Tots behind me start booing). Change the way we create energy. Produce our own energy in Nova Scotia.
NDP: Take tax money from corporations, give to social program. Do a review of how banks are regulated.
CPC: We haven’t cut social spending, we’ve increased it. I want someone to question Dion and Layton: Can you deliver your platform and keep a vibrant economy?
MLPC: Nationalize the banks. Don't bailout the rich.
GPC: The economy and the environment aren't separate (WOOOOO!!! YES!!!)
LPC: At least we have a platform, Ted. Our plan calls for growing the green economy.
NDP: The NDP is a prudent plan, we're just shifting where the money's going. (First hit on the Albertan "Tar Sands")
CPC: Thanks to our managing of finances, we're in the best position of the G7 counties, as we've paid down the debt (uh, Ted, we haven't.. check the books again).


At this point, my laptop died, and I stayed just long enough to hear a question about the Leaders debate from a somewhat angry person who was at the NDP nomination and was wondering why Layton and Harper opposed May's inclusion in the debate. As Megan Leslie gave her answer (She didn't ask for May's inclusion because of the May/Dion deal), a Heckler from the back of the room yelled that May's performance and inclusion in the debate was "No thanks to you!". The last point of note was the Marxist-Lenninist candidate claiming the science had not been settled, inviting a chorus of "Booos" from the audiance. Gold.

Anyway, that's it. Have a plesent evening, everyone.

Election 2008: Liveblogging the Halifax Debate Part II

Compensation for people of Africville?
GPC: Address historical injustices. Harper likes to spend money on crackdowns.. Goes on a tangent about spousal violence.
NDP: We’ve been open about our support for UN recommendations.
CPC: I support the implementation of the UN recommendations. (It just occurred to me that no one
MLPC: Full reparations without conditions to people of Africville. Organize yourselves to impose your demands. Don’t look to government.
LPC: If I’m elected, I will move heaven and earth to get these recommendations implemented. It has been an issue for far too long.

Foreign Aid and Non Confidence motions:
NDP: Dion Liberals propped them up. We’ve seen foreign aid spending drop under Liberals and Tories. Harper categorizes Afghanistan work as “aid”.
CPC: You’ll find Non-Confidence motions in all minority governments. I want a majority. I believe Canada needs an anti-poverty plan. We’ve upped our foreign aid, most of it goes to Afghanistan, I’m proud of our work there.
LPC: Non-confidence motions are typical. Layton has the luxury to say no because they don’t have enough seats to make a difference. Funding a war is not foreign aid; we should meet the targets that have been set. We should address poverty at home.
GPC: Scrap our first past the post system. Meet 0.7% GP obligations. We should have gone to Darfur, not Afghanistan.

NDP: Where is the Conservative strategy. Liberals cut minimum wage.
LPC: We have a comprehensive plan.
GPC: African Union ill-equipped for Darfur mission.
MLPC: (To GPC) You're for "White Man's Burden"?

Arts Funding:
CPC: How can you call our funding “diddly-squat”. I was at a fundraising event for Symphony Nova Scotia.
LPC: Reverse Tory cuts, add $160 million for filmmakers, increase tax credit for film production.
GPC: I make my livelihood in the arts. I promise you I’ll increase funding. More sensible income tax system. CanCon rules for cinemas.
NDP: What we had wasn’t good enough to begin with. Reverse C-10. Arts is good for the economy, and for the “hearts and souls”.
GPC: (To CPC) You’ve pushed through censorship.
NDP: ESL and Soccer aren’t “Arts and Culture”

Darfur:
MLPC: I’m opposed to sending troops into Darfur. It’s the US and Israel who are responsible for the violence there.
LPC: We’re advocates of taking a more active role,
GPC: (first George Bush Reference) We could have made a difference in Darfur. The odds of making a difference in Afghanistan are not in our favour.
NDP: Our military has a history of promoting human rights and peace. We spend $1 on combat to 10 cents on reconstruction. Work with women and local NGOs. Reclaim our role as promoters of peace.
CPC: We’ve made a significant contribution to Afghanistan. The reason more money is spent on the combat mission is because we’re in combat. If our allies stepped up, we could have helped out in Darfur.
GPC: We must leave Afghanistan.
NDP: We need to ensure that it’s the UN, not NATO or the US, that is involved in providing security and development.
LPC: After Rwanda, we said never again. It’s happening again. We need to live up to our commitment.
CPC: This time is different than the Russians. Canada wants to give freedom and human rights. Unlike those pesky commies.

Election 2008: Liveblogging the Halifax Debate

Tonight is the Halifax candidates’ forum. Present are:
Conservative Party: Ted Larsen
Marxist Leninist Party: Tony Seed
Liberal Party: Catherine Meade
Green Party: Darryl Whetter
New Democratic Party: Megan Leslie

To my right is Glen from Pierre Trudeau Is My Homeboy, somewhere on my left (and I still haven’t met him) is Keith Torie.

7:14 – Opening Remarks

Ted Larsen: “We all believe positive change is possible in our democracy.” Read off a paper, didn’t look at the audience. “There is hardly a segment of society that isn’t better since the Harper Government came to office” (Unless you’re an artist). Brought up the whole “protecting the public from crime” argument – CRIME! BOOGADA BOOGADA BOOGADA!

Catherine Meade: Reminding voters about Harper’s cuts to: Funding for arts, Atlantic Accord, Womens' programs, Kelowna accord, Childrens' Programs. “Tory times are tough times”.

7:24
Darryl Whetter: We need to focus on cities. “Education doesn’t cost us money, it saves us money”. Takes a swipe at Dion and Harper: “The arts aren’t “fun”, they’re an integral part of the economy.

Megan Leslie: Where is Harper’s economic strategy. Atlantic Canada can be a leader in a Green Economy.

First Question “Student Loans”:
MLP: We’re not going to form the next government, but someday we will. Cancel all student debt. Education is a right
LPC: Our party can form the next government. $1000 grant to students annually, 200,000 needs based bursaries, make sure than all students have access to $5000 loans no matter parental income.
GPC: Cut student debt by %50 upon graduation. Make transit passes tax deductible (Uh Darryl, they already are) “why have you pay taxes”.
NDP: I have lots of loan. We need a Post Secondary Education Act. (umm… details?)
CPC: Funding go to provinces where students go to school, not where they’re from.
LPC: No specifics in the NDP plan.

Second Question: Dedicated transfers to the provinces for education? Pan-Canadian Accord?
LPC: It makes sense. Need to get provinces and feds working together. I’m for more transparency in government.
GPC: Students are the balance of power in the HRM. In 2007, Canada ranked last of the OECD about how we spend money on education. We waste money in health and education.
NDP: Yes. We introduced a Post Secondary Learning Act.
CPC: Yes. I’m all for transparency and accountability.
MLPC: Replace tuition with a system of bursaries. Education serves multinationals, they don’t pay for it.

Third Question: How do we get more grad students?
GPC: More funding for tricouncils.
NDP: Money to councils to promote innovation. We have a affordable housing strategy. (What is it?)
CPC: We’ve recognized that this is an area that needs to be addressed. We’ve established scholarships for 500 top doctorate students, it’s the best we can do for now.
MLPC: The issue isn’t a shortage of graduate student. The question is for who are they being trained? (started talking about oil and gas research)
LPC: Increase funding to tricouncils by 34%, support for indirect costs of research by $500 million.

NDP: $40 million tax cut to corporations is achievable? Put it to students.
GPC: Commitment to cities designed to create affordable housing
LPC: We also have a plan for affordable housing, and one for green transit.
CPC: $40 billion in new taxes that the NDP proposes would let us do less.
MLPC: Make the rich pay.

So much for 250 years of Nova Scotian Democracy - Part II

An update from my previous post. Both the CBC and the ChronicleHerald are covering the story. Apparently, the local Tory candidate's office was also the victim of an unspecified attack last night.

In related news, Scott Brison has had his own signs vandalized recently - with someone painting "a disgustingly homophobic slur that will not be repeated on this blog" on his campaign signs. My faith in the Canadian electorate was confirmed somewhat with this statement from the ChronicleHerald:

“People were outraged. They called my father on Sunday morning and went out and cleaned off their signs,” Mr. Brison said.

Good to see that the people of Kings-Hants aren't going to be bullied around by small minded individuals. Who knows. Some day we may actually have an election based around ideas and policy, rather than lies, spin, and cowardly attacks. One can always hope.

Terrorism and political bullying spreads to Halifax - So much for D250

When I first heard of the vandalism against Liberal supporters in Toronto, I chalked it up as an isolated incident carried out some idiot drunk. However, with tires being slashed and break lines being cut, these acts crossed the line from mindless hooliganism to attempted murder. Then I became aware of a post on Scott’s DiaTribes from August highlighting the same incidents (keyed cars, spray painted homes, cut break lines) occurring in the Guelph by-election. What seemed at first like an isolated incident looked more and more like a sinister and disturbing trend.

And now, the violence has spread to Halifax. Glen over at Pierre Trudeau Is My Homeboy highlights the latest attacks on Liberal campaigns and supporters, with photos of the damage caused to local candidate Catherine Meade’s office after a number of rocks were thrown through the window.

Right now, a friend of mine has her Facebook status reading: “…apparently [...] live(s) in 1994 Rwanda”. While there’s a bit of hyperbole here, the point is that a significant line is crossed once we start using rocks and guns rather than words and ballots to settle our differences. Even growing up as a left-winger in Alberta, while I may have frequently been the odd-man-out in political discussions, I never felt my personal safety was in danger due to my beliefs. The people behind these attacks aren’t just assaulting one individual, or one party, but each and every Canadian. They are attempting to change the way our democracy works, by making us afraid to state our beliefs openly, and to challenge each others accepted beliefs.

This spring and summer, I watched on as violence and intimidation prevailed in the Zimbabwean presidential election, and was thankful that I could at least live in a county where I didn’t have to look over my shoulder on the way to the ballot box. The people who perpetrate these sorts of intimidation tactics, from Robert Mugabe to these local terrorists (for that is what they are); are intellectual lightweights and cowards – unable to make a point with rational arguments, they turn to schoolyard bullying. The one hope I have is that through world wars and threats of terrorism, we still haven’t lost our willingness as a society to stand up for our beliefs, and to have our say in how our country is run. As American journalist Edward R. Murrow once said:

“We will not walk in fear, one of another, we will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason. If we dig deep into our history and our doctrine, we will remember we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.”

Good night, and good luck.

The Politics of Nightmares: Harper and Tories campaign on protecting us from a threat only they can see, and that exists only in their immaginations

Sometimes I wonder what world Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party candidates are living in. The only mailouts I’ve received to date from the Tories (including their campaigning on the taxpayer dime and a recent litdrop from local Tory para-candidate Ted Larsen) deal with “tackling crime”. The pamphlet asks the voter if they are “tired of crime”, and claims the “NDP and the Liberals always fight the Conservative plan to tackle crime”. If one were to believe the lines spun by the Conservative War Room, we would appear to be under some sort of crime wave.

Unfortunately for them, that’s nothing more than fear mongering, and the crime wave they offer to protect us from exists only in their imagination. Here are the stats from stats can from 2003-2007 (all numbers / 100,000).

The Homicide rate for 2007 was 1.8, the 5 year average is 1.9 with a standard deviation of 0.16.

The Sexual Assault rate for 2007 was 65, the 5 year average is 70.4, with a standard deviation of 3.8.

The Violent Crime Rate for 2007 was 926.6, the 5 year average is 948.4, with a standard deviation of 13.0.

The Property Crime Rate for 2007 was 3319.7, the 5 year average is 3748.3, with a standard deviation of 314.1.

In each of these cases, the 2007 numbers were lower than the 5-year average. The world that Ted Larsen and Stephen Harper describe where crime is running rampant does not exist, and is nothing more than the politics of fear – inventing an imaginary boogieman that only they can see, and only they can protect us from. It’s a tired neo-con talking point that treats the voters like idiots, and is designed to keep citizens paralyzed by fear.

The Economist breaks down the global electoral college

Who would win the American election if the whole world voted? According to The Economist and its readers, it would be a massive Obama victory. Their website has a feature where readers from around the globe can cast their vote in a world wide electoral college. As it stands right now, the EC vote is 8309 for Obama, 8 for McCain.

Some countries of note:
Canada (49 EV): Obama 87%
USA (432 EV): 79% Obama
New Zealand (8 EV): 81% Obama
Russia (Hey, I can see Sarah Palin from here!)(205 EV): 79% Obama
Israel (12 EV): 75% Obama
Macedonia (5 EV - and the only country I could find that went McCain): 60% McCain

Head over to economist.com/vote2008 to check out the rest of the results

McCain blames polling woes on "life not being fair"

Thank goodness for RSS feeds, otherwise I would have missed this little CNN line courtesy of the Daily Kos:

McCain says Obama lead growing because ‘life isn’t fair’

(CNN) — Sen. John McCain said Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama’s poll numbers are rising as the economy seems to sink “because life isn’t fair.”

“He certainly did nothing for the first few days,” McCain said Thursday on Fox News. “I suspended my campaign, took our ads down, came back to Washington, met with the House folks and got on the phone, and also had face-to-face meetings.”

....

Obama joined McCain in Washington for a meeting with congressional leaders convened by the president. He said afterward was concerned “that when you start interjecting presidential politics into delicate negotiations, you could actually create more problems than less.”

The McCain/Palin campaign has been such a trainwreck, that it would be funny if it weren't so serious, and that people still think they're the most qualified people to lead the United States. As for tonight's debate, hopefully I'll get back from my night class in time to actually watch the Canadian English Debate, and the American VP one.